Prisons and jails are not the most romantic of places, nor are they particularly appealing wedding venues. Yet, every year, thousands of prisoners exercise their constitutionally protected right to get married while incarcerated. And despite the fact the ceremonies tend to be bleak affairs, with no cake and few (if any) guests, and that the happy couple do not get to enjoy any of the usual conjugal perks in the immediate aftermath, prisoners continue to request permission to get married. Barring any legitimate safety concern, their request will be granted. Unless, that is, the prisoner is a resident of the state of Hawaii, in which case it's far more likely the request will be denied.

As it happens, Hawaii's Department of Public Safety (DPS), which oversees its prison population, has been refusing to allow prisoners to marry for years, seemingly on the basis that they just don't believe prison marriage is a good idea or has much chance of working out. The DPS is now fighting a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Hawaii (pdf) on behalf of several women who have been repeatedly denied the right to marry their incarcerated fiances. The lawsuit is seeking damages for the women and seeking an immediate change to Hawaii's practice.

Before the suit was filed, prisoners who requested the right to marry would receive a form letter (see pdf) from the DPS refusing permission and explaining the reasoning as follows:

"As ward of the state incarcerated in a correctional facility, you are incapable of providing the necessary emotional, financial and physical support that every marriage needs in order to succeed."

The letter goes on to elaborate, in a somewhat garbled manner, why it is they (the DPS) feel that the marriage should not take place:

"We believe that a healthy relationship effort (marriage) established at this time while you are in prison and unable to work and communicate effectively face to face with your fiances will be detrimental to any future integrative efforts."

The DPS have a point, in that it is hard for a married couple to have face time while one of them is incarcerated. For Hawaiian residents, who are frequently sent thousands of miles from home to serve out their time on mainland prisons, it's more than usually difficult to spend quality time with loved ones. Denying them the chance to marry for that reason (which is beyond their control) is a little harsh, however. It's also unconstitutional. As Daniel Gluck, the ACLU attorney handling the case, pointed out, it is not up to the DPS to "deny someone's right to marry on the basis of their personal opinions".

In 1987, the US supreme court ruled (pdf) that absent a "legitimate penological reason", there are "constitutionally protected marital relations in the prison context" and that "where the inmate wishes to marry a civilian, the decision to marry is a completely private one" (Turner v Safley). Before filing their lawsuit, the ACLU brought this ruling to the DPS's attention and, at the time, it acknowledged that denying marriage on the basis that it might not work out was not actually cool and it pledged to stop sending out the form letters.

Instead, it issued a new set of guidelines (pdf), where a marriage request would only be denied if it was deemed to be a threat to public safety or a threat to the safety of the institution. Gluck claims, however, that the DPS continued sending out the same form letter for at least another nine months. (The letter I saw was dated August 2011, two months after the new guidelines), and, he believes, they have simply continued to find new ways to deny marriage requests.

One of the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit had her request to marry denied on the basis that their marriage would be a "threat to the safety of the institution". A second plaintiff was denied because it would be "a threat to public safety". I asked Toni Schwartz, spokesperson for the DPS, to give some specific examples of why a marriage would be a threat. She was unable to provide any, and later issued the following statement:

"Due to the pending litigation the judge is looking at that part of the policy and procedure very closely. It was part of the final challenge that the ACLU brought against us. The judge is still working on her ruling so we are going to reserve comment and examples of that part of the policy until after she has had time to go over the case and make a ruling."

Schwartz did confirm, however, that getting married resulted in absolutely no change to a prisoner's circumstances. The wedding ceremony is a non-event, after which the bride drives home alone and the groom resumes his daily prison routine. A wife or husband has no special visiting privileges, no additional phone calls, and there are no conjugal visits. The only change, then, is whatever emotional uplift the prisoner and his spouse experience. How that is a threat to public safety and security of the prison is anybody's guess.

What seems more likely is that the Hawaiian DPS simply does not hold a very sentimental view of prison marriage, and until a court rules against them, it is unlikely to stop imposing those unsentimental views on the prisoners, who are desperate to grasp whatever crumbs of wedded bliss might be within their reach.